Revision 1 - secure.azzule.com · Score: Total Compliance Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There...

Non-conformance Summary Report

Revision 1

PRELIMINARY REPORTCOMPLETED

Operation Type:RanchAudit Report Summary

CB Registration No.PA-PGFS-8485-2PrimusGFS ID #101184 - Cert:3

Audited by Primus Auditing Operations

PrimusGFS Version 2.1-2

Ver en Español

Organization:

WEST COAST FARMSContact(s): Dennis Piedrafita GABE GARCIAAddress: PO 4045 SALINAS,CA. 93912Location: Salinas, California 93912, United StatesPhone Number: 831-262-7911

Operation:

Brazil RanchContact(s): GABE GARCIALocation: 820 Old Stage Rd. Salinas, California 93908, United States

Shipper: West Coast Farms, Church Brothers

Operation Type: Ranch

Audit Type: Announced Audit

Audit Scope:

The scope of this report covers Brazil Ranch that has a surface of approximately 145 acres of conventional romaine lettuce,green leaf and sugar snap peas for human consumption. The audit was based upon a sampling review of food safetydocumentation (FSMS,policies and SOPs) and a field survey of the ranch operation and surrounding grounds (Groundhistory,adjacent land, fertilizer/crop nutrition, irrigation, crop protection and field employee hygiene). Well water is used at theranch. Note; at the time of the inspection, there were employees present in the ranch.

Date FSMS Started: 03 Aug 2016 14:00

Date FSMS Finished: 03 Aug 2016 15:00

Date Operation Started: 03 Aug 2016 13:00

Date Operation Finished: 03 Aug 2016 14:00

Product(s) observed during audit: Green Leaf Lettuce, Romaine Lettuce, Sugar Snap PeasSimilar product(s)/process(es) not

observed: NoneProduct(s) applied for but not

observed: None

Auditor: Javier Solis (Primus Auditing Operations)

Preliminary Audit Score: 98%

GPS Coordinates:

Latitude Longitude

36° 43' 12" 121° 36' 30" Click here to seemap

36° 43' 15" 121° 36' 18"36° 43' 1" 121° 35' 59"

36° 43' 36" 121° 36' 10"36° 43' 38" 121° 36' 26"

Page 1 of 26

https://secure.azzule.com/PrimusGFSAudits/PDFTranslate.aspx?url=https://secure.azzule.com/PrimusGFSAudits/TestPDF.aspx?AuditHeaderID=35456814812606519371036235737054660276549&LanguageID=1&ISGFS=1&Completed=1

mailto: [email protected]

mailto: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

https://secure.azzule.com/PrimusGFSAudits/testPage.aspx?AuditHeaderID=101184

http://secure.azzule.com/PrimusGFSAudits/testPage.aspx?AuditHeaderID=101184

https://secure.azzule.com/PGFSDocuments/PGFS_NCReport101184_959_1_P_EN.pdf

AUDIT SCORING SUMMARY Pre-Corrective Action Review

Food Safety Management System RequirementsScore: 199Possible Points: 199Percent Score: 100%

Good Agricultural Practices RequirementsScore: 741Possible Points: 751Percent Score: 98%

TOTALScore: 940Possible Points: 950Percent Score: 98%

Non-Conformance Summary By Count Pre-Corrective Action Non-Conformances

Food Safety Management System Requirements 0

Good Agricultural Practices Requirements 1

TOTAL 1

SECTIONS:

Food Safety Management System Requirements Good Agricultural Practices Requirements

Management System

Control of Documents and Records

Procedures and Corrective Actions

Internal and external inspections

Rejection and release of product

Supplier Control

Traceability and Recall

Food Defense

General GAP

Site Identification

Ground History

Adjacent land use

Fertilizer/Crop Nutrition

Irrigation/Water Use

Crop Protection

Field Worker Hygiene (Applies to on-the-farm or greenhouse workers not theharvesting workers)

FSMS Management System

1.01.01

Question: Is there a Food Safety Manual or other documented food safety management system covering thescope of business included in this audit and procedures/instructions for all food safety processes?

Possible Points: 5Points Scored: 5Score: Total Compliance

Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There is a food safety manual covering the scope of the of the businessincluded in this audit and procedures/instructions for the food safety processes. For example, there were SOP's forwater, pesticides, calibration, sanitation, harvest and risk assessment policies and product list etc. The manual iscalled "West Coast Farms, Inc.., Food Safety Program/Food Safety Manual A, B, C,D&E 2016." It was updated inon March 22, 2016, by Gabe Garcia & Dennis Piedrafita (LandMark Enterprises).

Page 2 of 26

1.01.02

Question: Is there a documented food safety policy detailing the company´s commitment to food safety?Possible Points: 5Points Scored: 5Score: Total Compliance

Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There is a food safety policy in place detailing the company's commitmentto food safety. The policy includes statements and objectives of the company's commitment to food safety,following food safety laws, adhering to industry food safety best practices and a process of continual improvement.It is called "Food Safety Program Management Plan & Commitment to Food Safety ." The food safety policy wassigned by Gabe Garcia on March 22, 2016. The food safety policy was posted in the ranch.

1.01.03

Question: Is there an organizational chart of all workers who have food safety related activities?Possible Points: 3Points Scored: 3Score: Total Compliance

Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There is an organization flow chart describing the activities related to foodsafety. It is called "H. Organizational Chart." The alternates were included in the organizational. The organizationalchart describes the position and reporting the structure of employees whose activities affect food safety. It is called"Letter I. Job Description." The organization flow chart was updated on March 22, 2016.

1.01.04

Question: Is there a food safety committee and are there logs of food safety meetings with topics covered andattendees?


Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There is a food safety committee composed of Gabe Garcia and EnriqueGarcia; and, there were logs of the food safety meetings. It is called "Food Safety Committee Meeting Records."The last Food Safety Committee meetings were held on March 16, 2016, December 18, 2015, and September 10,2015. The minutes and attendees were recorded in the meeting records. The frequency of the food safety meetingsare quarterly or as needed.

1.01.05

Question: Is there documented management verification of the entire food safety management system at leastevery 12 months?


Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. The management verification of the entire food safety management systemwas available for review during the audit. It is called "Food Safety Management System Review Records." It wassigned by Gabe Garcia on March 22, 2016.

1.01.06

Question: Is there a documented analysis detailing resources required to implement and improve the food safetymanagement system processes with documented commitment from management to provide these resources?


Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There is an analysis detailing resources required to implement andimprove the food safety management system processes with documented commitment from the seniormanagement. It is called " C. Food Safety Management System Records. Food Safety Management SystemResources." It was signed by Gabe Garcia on March 22, 2016.

FSMS Control of Documents and Records

1.02.01

Question: Is there a written document control procedure describing how documents will be maintained, updatedand replaced?


Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There is a written documented control procedure describing howdocuments will be maintained, updated and replaced. It is called "SOP 1-02 Document Control." The food safetymanager is responsible for the document control and the documents are revised by Landmark AG.

1.02.02

Question: Are all records stored for a minimum period of 12 months or for at least the shelf life of product if greaterthan a year?


Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. The organization stored the records for a Minimum of two years. Recordsfrom the past year were available for review during the audit. The SOP is called "SOP 1-02 DocumentControl/Procedures Preventive Measures Letter E."

Page 3 of 26

1.02.03

Question: Are food safety related documents and records stored and handled in a secured manner?Possible Points: 3Points Scored: 3Score: Total Compliance

Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. The organization stored and handled the food safety records anddocuments in a secure manner. For example, the company has a secured place (main office) where they store allthe documents. The records and documents reviewed during the audit were legible and traceable. Gabe Garcia isresponsible for storage and handling of food safety related documents for the organization. Note, all recordsreviewed were free of correction fluid on the day of the audit.

1.02.04

Question: Are the records maintained in an organized and retrievable manner?Possible Points: 3Points Scored: 3Score: Total Compliance

Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. The organization maintained in an organized and retrievable manner of thefood safety records and documents. During the audit, the food safety documents and records were well organized.Binders have a cover page with tabulated sub sections. Binders include a main index or indexing within the subsections. Gabe Garcia and Dennis Piedrafita demonstrated they could retrieve any document requested promptly.

FSMS Procedures and Corrective Actions

1.03.01

Question: Are there documented instructions for the creation of Standard Operating Procedures?Possible Points: 5Points Scored: 5Score: Total Compliance

Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There is a documented instruction for the creation of Standard Operatingprocedures. It is called "SOP 1-01 SOP Administration/ Creating a New SOP." Gabe Garcia and Dennis Piedrafitaare responsible for the creation of the Standard Operating Procedures.

1.03.02

Question: Are the written procedures available to relevant users and is a master copy maintained in a central file?Possible Points: 5Points Scored: 5Score: Total Compliance

Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. The written procedures were available for relevant users (supervisor andEmployees) and the master copy was maintained in a central file (Main office). For example, records, food safetypolicies, SOPs were available for review on the day of the audit.

1.03.03

Question: Is there a corrective action procedure that describes the requirements for handling deficiencies affectingfood safety and prevention of future occurrences?


Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There is a corrective action procedure describes the requirements forhandling deficiencies affecting food safety and prevention of futures occurrences. Recording logs include correctiveaction, the follow-up to evaluate the effectiveness of corrective actions and root cause. The SOP is called "SOP 20-01 Corrective Actions."

1.03.04

Question: Is there a daily incidents report, sometimes called a Notice(s) of Unusual Occurrence and CorrectiveActions Log (NUOCA) ?


Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There is a daily incidents report, called a Notice (S) of UnusualOccurrence and Corrective Actions Log (NUOCA). The Log was available for review during the audit. It is called“NUOCA Log (Notices of Unusual Occurrence and Corrective Actions." The organization indicated there had notbeen any unusual occurrences in the past 12 months that would require the use of this record.

FSMS Internal and external inspections

1.04.01

Question: Is there documented program for internal audits to be performed at the operations, covering allprocesses impacting food safety and the related documents and records?


Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There is a documented program for internal audits to be performed at theoperation. It is called "SOP 17-01 Program Verification." Records of the ranch and harvest crew inspections wereavailable for review on the day of the audit. The last internal audit was on April 4, 2016, by Gabe Garcia and DennisPiedrafina. The organization uses the PrimusGFS Check List V2.1-2. The audits were fully documented.Inspections frequency annually or as needed.

Page 4 of 26

1.04.02

Question: Are there written procedures for handling regulatory inspections?Possible Points: 3Points Scored: 3Score: Total Compliance

Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There is a written procedure for handling regulatory inspections in place. Itis called "SOP 3-03 Regulatory Inspections Guidelines." Includes procedures for checking inspector credentialsrequire signing in, conduct during the opening meeting , accompanying the inspector at all times, duplicate sampleand photo taking procedures and follow up after the inspection.

1.04.03

Question: Are there records of regulatory inspections and/or contracted inspections, company responses andcorrective actions, if any?


Auditor Comments: Yes. There were records of contracted inspections available for review during the audit. Thelast regulatory inspection was on October 7, 2015, by PrimesLabs V2.1. The corrective actions were in place andavailable for review during the audit.

1.04.04

Question: Are there documented calibration procedures for measuring and monitoring devices used in theoperations that are related to the safety of the product?


Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There were documented policies and/or procedures for the calibration. It iscalled "West Coast Farms Raven Calibration Procedures." Record of calibrations was available for review during theaudit. sprayers were calibrated. The frequency of calibration is monthly at a minimum or as needed.

FSMS Rejection and release of product

1.05.01

Question: Is there a written procedure for handling on hold or rejected products?Possible Points: 5Points Scored: 5Score: Total Compliance

Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There is a procedure for handling on hold or rejected product. It is called"SOP 22-01 Product Hold/Release and Rejected Product Holding." The shipper is responsible for putting theproduct on hold. The product is identified as date, reason, and name.

1.05.02

Question: Are there records of the handling of on hold or rejected products kept on file?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments: N/A. The organization did not have records of handling or rejected products, because they didnot have any issues in the past. However, the hold or rejected log was available for review during the audit. It iscalled "NUOCA LOG-Doc 22.2." Note, the organization indicated there have not been any issues resulting inholding any materials and there have not been any rejections in the previous 12 months.

1.05.03

Question: Is there a documented product release procedure available?Possible Points: 5Points Scored: 5Score: Total Compliance

Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There is a documented product release procedure in place. It is called"SOP 22-01 Product Hold/Release and Rejected Product Holding." According to Brian Thorne, the shipper isresponsible for putting the product on hold. The product is identified with date, reason, and name.

1.05.04

Question: Are there records of product releases kept on file?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments: N/A. The organization did not have records release because they did not have any issues inthe past. However, during the audit, the product release log was available for review. It is called "NUOCA LOG-Doc22.2." Note, the organization indicated there have not been any issues resulting in holding or release any materialsand there have not been any rejections in the previous 12 months.

Page 5 of 26

1.05.05

Question: Is there a documented system for dealing with customer and buyer food safety complaints/feedbackalong with records and company responses, including corrective actions?


Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There is a documented system for dealing with customer complaints andbuyer food safety complaints. It is called "Customer Complaints Feedback." The organization did not have anyissues in the past with customer complaints. The shipper is responsible for the customer complaints. There is alsoa log using the same title to record details of any product complaints; Including a description of the issue, wholodged the complaint, cause investigation and what corrective actions were implemen

FSMS Supplier Control

1.06.01

Question: Are there current written food safety related specifications for all raw products, ingredients, materialsand services purchased?


Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There were specifications for all ingredients, materials, products andservices. The SOP is called "Sop 20-01 Supplier Specification." The specifications were easily accessible tousers. It was Updated March 22, 2016, by Gabe Garcia. Review annually or as needed.

1.06.02

Question: Is there a written procedure detailing how suppliers are evaluated, approved and monitored?Possible Points: 5Points Scored: 5Score: Total Compliance

Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There is a written procedure detailing how suppliers are evaluated,approved and monitored. It is called "Sop 17-01 Supplier Evaluation." It was Updated March 22, 2016, by GabeGarcia. Review annually or as needed.

1.06.03

Question: Is there a list of approved suppliers?Possible Points: 5Points Scored: 5Score: Total Compliance

Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There is an approved suppliers list available for review during the audit. It iscalled "Approved Supplier List." Green Valley Farm Supplier, Inc, R & B Helicopter, and primuslabs were includedin the approved supplier list. It was Updated March 22, 2016, by Gabe Garcia. Review annually or as needed.

1.06.04

Question: Does the organization have documented evidence to ensure that all products, ingredients or materialsand services suppliers comply with the approval requirements and that they are being monitored as defined in theprocedure?


Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. The organization documented evidence to ensure that all products,ingredients or materials, and services suppliers comply with the approval requirements and that they are beingmonitored. The organizations are using verification requirements/Supplier Observation Log. There were letters ofguarantee for agriculture inputs, product raw material and processing aids available for review during the audit.

1.06.05

Question: If the organization is outsourcing any processes that may affect food safety, are there controlprocedures over such processes?


Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. The organization has control procedures for the outsourcing or anyprocesses that may affect food safety. The organization monitored, identified and documented to make sure theyhave control. For example, Supplier Observation Log and Supplier Food Safety Policies.

1.06.06

Question: If tests and/or analysis within scope to food safety are performed by external laboratories, are theylicensed/accredited (e.g. ISO 17025 or equivalent, National Regulations, State Department, etc.)?


Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. Primus Group Inc.,DBA Primuslabs/Biological Testing performed for thisorganization. Certificate Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program. Accreditation Laboratory A2LA.Certificate Number 3572.01. Effective Date January 1, 2014, and Expiration Date April 30, 2016.

FSMS Traceability and Recall

Page 6 of 26

1.07.01

Question: Is there a document that indicates how the company product tracking system works, thereby enablingtrace back and trace forward to occur in the event of a potential recall issue?


Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There is a documented traceability procedure indicating the code used toaid in accurate and timely traceability of product for the possible recall. It is called "SOP 15-01 ProductTraceability."Gabe Garcia and Dennis piedrafita explained in detail how a product is identified and tracked.

1.07.02

Question: Does the organization have a documented recall program including procedures, recall team roles andcontact details, external contact listings and explanation of different recall classes?


Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. The organization had a recall program that included: procedures, recallteam, roles and contact details, external contact listings, an explanation of different types (classes) of recalls,roles/responsibilities, instructions for conducting a recall and includes model forms and record keeping forms. Iscalled "Traceback and Recall Plan."

1.07.03

Question: Is testing of recall procedures (including trace back) performed and documented at least every sixmonths? Can the company identify where affected product was sent?


Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. The mock recall was conducted on March 28, 2016. (30 minutes). MockRecall Record/ The mock recall summary scenario and the supporting documentation and the lesson learned aresummarized a mock recall report. There are also supporting records for Harvest Report & Irrigation water analyses.The other Mock recall was on November 1, 2015.

FSMS Food Defense

1.08.01

Question: Does the company have a documented food defense policy based on the risks associated with theoperation?


Auditor Comments: Total-compliance. The organization has a documented food defense policy based on the risksassociated with the operation. The policy was available for review during the audit. It is called "SOP 13-01 FoodDefense." Update on March 13, 2016.

1.08.02

Question: Is there a current list of emergency contact phone numbers for management, law enforcement andappropriate regulatory agencies?


Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. There is a current list of emergency contacts phones numbers formanagement, law enforcement, and appropriate regulatory agencies. The list was available for review during theaudit. The document is called "Document 12.2 Traceback and Recall Plan(Law Enforcement Agencies)." Theemergency contact phone numbers were posted on the shops

1.08.03

Question: Are visitors to the company operations required to adhere to food defense policies?Possible Points: 3Points Scored: 3Score: Total Compliance

Auditor Comments: Total Compliance. The visitors adhere to the food safety policies. Food defense Policyincluded on the Visitor Sign in the registry. Auditor required to read and agree to comply with food defense policiesprior to singing. The organization has a signing sheet for all visitors. It is called "Supplier Food Safety Policies/Sanitation Hearth, and Hygiene Policies, Production Area Policies and Food Defense." Note. Visitors are alsorequired to sign-out at the end of their visit.

GAP General GAP

2.01.01

Question: Is there a designated person responsible for the food safety program in the field?Possible Points: 10Points Scored: 10Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. Gabe Garcia is responsible for the food safety program in the field. Dennis Piedrafita(LandMark Enterprises- Ag Support Services) help Gabe Garcia with the food Safety program.

Page 7 of 26

2.01.02

Question: Is there documented evidence of the internal audits performed to the audited operations, detailingfindings and corrective actions?

Possible Points: 10Points Scored: 10Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. There is documented evidence of the internal audit performed to the audited operationsdetailing findings and corrective actions. The last internal audit was on April 4, 2016, by Gabe Garcia and DennisPiedrafita . The organization uses the PrimusGFS Check List V2.1-2. The audits were fully documented.Inspections frequency quarterly or as needed.

2.01.03

Question: Are the necessary food security controls implemented in the operation?Possible Points: 5Points Scored: 5Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. The organization has the necessary food security controls for preventing intentionalcontamination. The organization has a documented food defense policy based on the risks associated with theoperation. The policy was available for review during the audit. It is called "SOP 13-01 Food Defense."

GAP Site Identification

2.02.01

Question: Is the growing area(s) adequately identified or coded to enable trace back and trace forward in the eventof a recall?


Auditor Comments: Yes. The growing area is identified with blocks and ranch name. The map of the ranch wasavailable for review during the audit.

GAP Ground History

2.03.01

Question: Were farming area(s) used for growing food crops for human consumption last season?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. The growing areas were used for food crops for human consumption last season.Records from the past year were available for review during the audit. Vegetables were planted last season.

2.03.02

Question: Has the growing area(s) been used for any non-agricultural functions? If No, go to 2.03.03Possible Points: 7Points Scored: 7Score: No

Auditor Comments: No. The growing area was not used for any non-agricultural functions.

2.03.02a

Question: If the land had been used previously for non-agricultural functions have soil tests been conductedshowing soil was negative or within an appropriate regulatory agency's approved limits for contaminants?

Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

2.03.03

Question: Has the growing area(s) been used for animal husbandry or grazing land for animals? If No, go to2.03.04

Possible Points: 7Points Scored: 7Score: No

Auditor Comments: No. The growing areas were not used for animal husbandry or for grazing.

2.03.03a

Question: If the land was used previously for animal husbandry or grazing land for livestock, has a risk evaluationbeen performed?


Auditor Comments:

2.03.04

Question: Is there evidence of animal presence and/or animal activity in the audited area? If answer is NO, go to Q2.03.05.


Auditor Comments: No. There was no evidence of animal presence or animal activity in the audited area duringthe audit.

Page 8 of 26

2.03.04a

Question: Is the evidence of animal presence and/or animal activity found, in the form of fecal contamination? Ifanswer is NO, go to Q 2.03.05.


Auditor Comments:

2.03.04b

Question: Is the fecal matter found in the audited area, a systematic event (not sporadic)? A 'YES' ANSWER TOTHIS QUESTION RESULTS IN AN AUTOMATIC FAILURE OF THE AUDIT.


Auditor Comments:

2.03.05

Question: Has flooding from uncontrolled causes occurred on the growing area(s) since the previous growingseason? If No, go to 2.03.06


Auditor Comments: No. There was no flooding from uncontrolled causes in the growing area. This was verballyconfirmed by Gabe Garcia.

2.03.05a

Question: If the growing area(s) and product was affected from the flood waters, is there documented evidence thatcorrective measures were taken to affected land and product?


Auditor Comments:

2.03.05b

Question: Have soil tests been conducted on the flooded area(s) showing soil was negative or within anappropriate regulatory agency's approved limits for contaminants?


Auditor Comments:

2.03.06

Question: Is the growing operation under organic principals? If No, go to 2.3.07Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: No

Auditor Comments: No. The growing operation is not under organic principles.

2.03.06a

Question: Is current certification by an accredited organic certification organization on file and available for review?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

2.03.07

Question: Has a documented risk assessment been undertaken for the growing area with appropriate correctiveactions to minimize identified hazards where necessary?


Auditor Comments: Yes. There is a documented risk assessment been undertaken for the growing area. The riskassessment is called “Growing area Risk Assessment/Doc. 13.2 Preseason Ranch Inspection." It was completedby Gabe Garcia and Dennis Piedrafita on March 13, 2016. Records of the Risk assessment were available forreview on the day of the audit. According to the risk assessment, there are no high risks in the ranch.

GAP Adjacent land use

2.04.01

Question: Is the adjacent land to the growing area a possible source of contamination from intensive livestockproduction (e.g. feed lots, dairy operations, poultry houses, meat rendering operation)? If No, go to 2.04.02


Auditor Comments: No. The adjacent land to the growing area is not a possible source of contamination. Therewas no intensive livestock activities production (e.g. feed lots, dairy operations, poultry houses, meat renderingoperation) on the adjacent land during the audit. There is agriculture lands in the adjacent lands of the ranch.

Page 9 of 26

2.04.01a

Question: Have appropriate measures been taken to mitigate this possible contamination source onto the growingarea (e.g. buffer areas, physical barriers, foundation, fences, ditches, etc.)?


Auditor Comments:

2.04.02

Question: Are, or is there evidence of domestic animals, wild animals, grazing lands (includes homes with hobbyfarms, and non commercial livestock) in proximity to growing operation? If No, go to 2.04.03.


Auditor Comments: Yes. There was evidence of domestic animals ( cows ) on block #4 the adjacent land(domestic animals).

2.04.02a

Question: Have physical measures been put in place to restrain domestic animals, grazing lands, (includeshomes with hobby farms, and non commercial livestock) and their waste from entering the growing area (e.g.vegetative strips, wind breaks, physical barriers, berms, fences, diversion ditches.)?


Auditor Comments: Yes. There were physical measures that were put in place to restrain cows from entering thegrowing area. For example, physical barriers, a fence, and buffer zone

2.04.02b

Question: Is there a written policy supported by visual evidence that domestic, livestock, or wild animals are notallowed in the growing area? Note: This includes any packaging or equipment storage areas.


Auditor Comments: Yes. There was a written policy that domestic, livestock, or wild animals are not allowed inthe growing area. It is called "Workers Practices and Production Area P12."

2.04.02c

Question: Are measures in place to reduce or limit the animal intrusion (i.e., monitoring field perimeter for signs ofintrusion)?


Auditor Comments: Yes. Measures were in place to reduce or limit animal intrusion. The ranch supervisormonitored the field perimeters for signs of intrusion.

2.04.03

Question: Are untreated animal manure piles, compost, biosolids, or nonsynthetic amendment stored and/orapplied on adjacent land? If No, go to 2.04.04


Auditor Comments: No. There is no untreated animal manure piles, compost, biosolids, or nonsyntheticamendment stored or applied on the adjacent land at the time of the audit.

2.04.03a

Question: Have physical measures been taken to secure untreated animal manure piles, compost, biosolids, ornonsynthetic amendment stored and/or applied on adjacent land?


Auditor Comments:

2.04.03b

Question: If biosolids are stored and/or applied on adjacent land, has the adjacent landowner supplied paperworkconfirming the biosolids meet prevailing guidelines, governmental, or local standards?


Auditor Comments:

2.04.04

Question: Is the growing area situated in a higher risk location where contamination could occur from nearbyoperations or functions (e.g. leach fields, runoff or potential flooding from sewers, toilet systems,industrial facilities, labor camps)? If No, go to 2.04.05.


Auditor Comments: No. The growing area is not located in a high-risk location where contamination could occurfrom nearby operations or functions (e.g. leach fields, runoff or potential flooding from sewers, toilet systems,industrial facilities, labor camps)

2.04.04a

Question: Have appropriate measures been taken to mitigate risks related to nearby operations?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

Page 10 of 26

2.04.05

Question: Is there evidence of human fecal matter in the adjacent land to the audited area? If NO, go to 2.05.01(Greenhouse Audit) or 2.07.01 (Ranch Audit)


Auditor Comments: No. There is no evidence of human fecal contamination in the adjacent land during the audit.

2.04.05a

Question: Does the human fecal matter found in the adjacent area, represents a high risk to the crop for potentialof contamination due to conditions as: lack of access controls (barriers), closeness to the growing area andequipment, crop type and maturity, land condition, and others?


Auditor Comments:

GAP Fertilizer/Crop Nutrition

2.07.01

Question: Is untreated human sewage sludge used in the growing cycle? A ´YES ́ANSWER TO THIS QUESTIONRESULTS IN AN AUTOMATIC FAILURE OF THE AUDIT.


Auditor Comments: No. No human sewage sludge was used in the growing cycle. This was verbally confirmed byGabe Garcia.

2.07.02

Question: Is compost produced from animal derived materials used by the grower? If No, go to 2.07.03Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: No

Auditor Comments: No. No compost produced from animal was used. This was verbally confirmed by GabeGarcia.

2.07.02a

Question: Are compost applications incorporated into the soil prior to planting or bud burst for tree crops and notapplied during the growing season?


Auditor Comments:

2.07.02b

Question: Are there compost use records available for each growing area, including application records whichshows that the interval between application and harvest was not less than 45 days (unless validation studies provea shorter interval is acceptable)?


Auditor Comments:

2.07.02c

Question: Are there Certificate(s) of Analysis (CoA) from the compost supplier(s) that covers pathogen testing(plus any other legally/best practice required testing) and does the grower have relevant letters of guaranteeregarding SOP´s and logs?


Auditor Comments:

2.07.02d

Question: Are there Certificate(s) of Analysis (COA), letters of guarantee or some other documents from thecompost supplier(s) that covers heavy metal testing?


Auditor Comments:

2.07.03

Question: Are biosolids used? If No, go to 2.07.04. NOTE: Special attention to commodity specific guidelinesrules (e.g., Californian Leafy Greens) which ban the use of biosolids, see 2.07.03d


Auditor Comments: No. No biosolids were used. This was verbally confirmed by Gabe Garcia.

2.07.03a

Question: Are biosolids incorporated into the soil prior to planting or bud burst for tree crops and not applied duringthe growing season?


Auditor Comments:

Page 11 of 26

2.07.03b

Question: Are the grower's biosolids use records available for each growing area, especially application records?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

2.07.03c

Question: Is there a Certificate(s) of Analysis (COA) from the biosolid supplier(s) certifying compliance withprevailing national/ local standards and guidelines (microbiological analysis)? A ´NO ́ANSWER TO THISQUESTION RESULTS IN AN AUTOMATIC FAILURE OF THE AUDIT.


Auditor Comments:

2.07.03d

Question: Are there Certificate(s) of Analysis (COA), letters of guarantee or some other documents from thebiosolid supplier(s) certifying compliance with prevailing national/ local standards and guidelines (heavy metal testanalysis)?


Auditor Comments:

2.07.03e

Question: Are biosolids being applied to crops where the country of production regulations/guidelines ban the usesuch materials e.g. Leafy Green Commodity Specific Guidelines in California? A 'YES' ANSWER TO THISQUESTION RESULTS IN AN AUTOMATIC FAILURE OF THE AUDIT.


Auditor Comments:

2.07.04

Question: Is untreated animal manure used? If No, go to 2.07.05. NOTE: Special attention to commodity specificguidelines rules (e.g., Californian Leafy Green Commodity Specific Guidelines) which ban the use of untreatedanimal manures. See 2.07.04d


Auditor Comments: No. No untreated animal manure was used. This was verbally by Gabe Garcia.

2.07.04a

Question: Is untreated animal manure incorporated into the soil prior to planting or bud burst for tree crops and notapplied during the growing season?


Auditor Comments:

2.07.04b

Question: Are there untreated animal manure records available for each growing area including application recordswhich shows that the interval between application and harvest was not less than 120 days (unless more stringentlaws or guidelines exist)?


Auditor Comments:

2.07.04c

Question: Are there Certificate(s) of Analysis (COA), specification or some other document available for reviewprovided by the untreated animal manure supplier stating the components of the material?


Auditor Comments:

2.07.04d

Question: Are untreated animal manures being used where the country regulations/guidelines ban the use suchmaterials (e.g., Californian Leafy Green Commodity Specific Guidelines)? A 'YES' ANSWER TO THIS QUESTIONRESULTS IN AN AUTOMATIC FAILURE OF THE AUDIT.


Auditor Comments:

2.07.05

Question: Are other nonsynthetic crop treatments used (e.g. compost teas, fish emulsions, fish meal, bloodmeal,"bio fertilizers")? If No, go to 2.07.06


Auditor Comments: No. No Non-synthetic crop treatments were used. This was verbally confirmed by GabeGarcia.

2.07.05a

Question: Are nonsynthetic treatments that contain animal products or animal manures applied to the edibleportions crops?


Auditor Comments:

Page 12 of 26

2.07.05b

Question: Are nonsynthetic crop treatment records available for each growing area including application recordsdemonstrating the interval between application and harvest was not less than 45 days (unless validation studiesprove a shorter interval is acceptable)?


Auditor Comments:

2.07.05c

Question: Are there Certificate(s) of Analysis available from the nonsynthetic crop treatment suppliers that coverspathogen testing (plus any other legally/best practice required testing)?


Auditor Comments:

2.07.05d

Question: Are there Certificate(s) of Analysis (COA), letters of guarantee or some other documents from thenonsynthetic crop treatment suppliers that covers heavy metal testing?


Auditor Comments:

2.07.06

Question: Are any soil or substrate amendments (except inorganic nutrients/fertilizers) used that do not containanimal products and/or animal manures? If No, go to 2.07.07


Auditor Comments: No. No soil or substrate amendments were used. This was verbally confirmed by GabeGarcia .

2.07.06a

Question: Are the grower's soil or substrate amendment (except inorganic nutrients/fertilizers that do not containanimal products and/or animal manures) records available for review including application records?


Auditor Comments:

2.07.06b

Question: Are there Certificate(s) of Analysis (COA) and/or letters of guarantee stating that the materials used arefree from animal products and/or animal manures?


Auditor Comments:

2.07.07

Question: Are inorganic fertilizers used? If No, go to 2.07.08Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. Inorganic synthetic fertilizers were used.

2.07.07a

Question: Are the grower's inorganic fertilizer records available for review including application records?Possible Points: 10Points Scored: 10Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. The grower application records were available for review detailing date, area treated,application method and amount applied (synthetic fertilizer). The log is called " Gabe Garcia Fertilizer Notes (WorkOrder)."

2.07.07b

Question: Are there Certificate(s) of Analysis (COA), letters of guarantee or some other documents from theinorganic fertilizer supplier(s) that specifies the all the ingredients including inert materials?


Auditor Comments: Yes. There is a letter of guarantee from Performance Letter Of Compliance 2016., (January2016) signed by Vicky Duke. The letters of guarantee stated that the synthetic fertilizer and their inert ingredientsdo not contain manure sources of any kind, animal parts or any non-synthetic animal by-product. They werecomplying with the established specifications, regulatory requirements, and best practice guidelines.

2.07.08

Question: If fertilizers and/or fertilizer containers are stored on the property, are they stored in a manner to preventcontamination to the growing area(s), product or any of water sources?


Auditor Comments: Yes. The fertilizer containers are stores on the property out side of the growing area toprevent contamination.

Page 13 of 26

GAP Irrigation/Water Use

2.08.01

Question: Does the growing operation practice dryland farming? If No, go to 2.08.02.Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: No

Auditor Comments: No. Dryland farming was not practiced.

2.08.01a

Question: If the growing operation practices dryland farming, are there water systems used in the growingoperation to supply for crop needs such as crop protection/fertilizer applications, and frost or freeze preventionprogram? If No, go to 2.08.02


Auditor Comments:

2.08.01b

Question: Are microbiological tests, including generic E.coli conducted on the water? If No, go to 2.08.01dPossible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

2.08.01c

Question: Are the microbiological tests current and conducted at the required and/or expected frequencies?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

2.08.01d

Question: Do written procedures (SOPs) exist covering proper sampling protocols which include where samplesshould be taken and how samples should be identified?


Auditor Comments:

2.08.01e

Question: Do written procedures (SOPs) exist covering corrective measures for unsuitable or abnormal watertesting results?


Auditor Comments:

2.08.01f

Question: If unsuitable or abnormal results have been detected, have documented corrective measures beenperformed?


Auditor Comments:

2.08.02

Question: Is the water used for the growing operation sourced from Municipal or District water pipeline systems? IfNo, go to 2.08.03


Auditor Comments: No. District water pipeline system was not used as a water source.

2.08.02a

Question: Are microbiological tests, including generic E.coli conducted on the water? If No, go to 2.08.02c.Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

2.08.02b


Auditor Comments:

Page 14 of 26

2.08.02c



Auditor Comments:

2.08.02d



Auditor Comments:

2.08.02e



Auditor Comments:

2.08.02f

Question: Are the crops irrigated by a micro irrigation or drip system?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

2.08.02g

Question: Is overhead irrigation used to irrigate the crop or as part of a frost or freeze prevention program? NOTE:"Irrigating the crop" refers to irrigation during the mature growing cycle. This does not include pre-planting or justafter planting to create a stand.


Auditor Comments:

2.08.02h

Question: Are the crops irrigated by flood irrigation or a furrow system?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

2.08.02i

Question: Are the crops sub irrigated (also known as seepage irrigation)?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

2.08.03

Question: Is the water used in the growing operation sourced from wells? If No, go to 2.08.04Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. Well water was used as a water source.

2.08.03a

Question: Are all well heads at adequate distance from untreated manure?Possible Points: 15Points Scored: 15Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. There was no manure of any kind observed in proximity to the well head.

2.08.03b

Question: Is the well designed to prevent contamination?Possible Points: 10Points Scored: 10Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. The well was outside of the growing area and it was designed to prevent contamination.

2.08.03c

Question: Is it evident that the well(s) is free from contamination issues and are measures taken to minimizecontamination of wells?


Auditor Comments: Yes. The well was free from contamination issues during the audit.

Page 15 of 26

2.08.03d

Question: Are records kept for periodic inspections and treatment of wells (if performed) available for review?Possible Points: 7Points Scored: 7Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. There were records were available for review. It is called "Sanitary Survey-Well andDistribution System/Periodic Water Source Inspection Log." The last water inspection was performed on June 1,2016, by Gabe Garcia. Inspections performed monthly.

2.08.03e

Question: Are microbiological tests, including generic E.coli conducted on the water? If No, go to 2.08.03gPossible Points: 20Points Scored: 20Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. Testing was performed on a Monthly or as needed. PrimusLabs is responsible for thewater test (E.coli) for this organization. The last result was on July 6, 2016. No unsuitable results were detected.

2.08.03f

Question: Are the microbiological tests current and conducted at the required and/or expected frequencies?Possible Points: 15Points Scored: 15Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. Testing was performed on a monthly basis during production or as needed (e.coli).

2.08.03g



Auditor Comments: Yes. There is a written procedure for covering proper sampling protocols which include wheresamples should be taken and how samples should be identified. The written procedures were available for review. Itis called "Water Sampling SOP 4-02."

2.08.03h



Auditor Comments: Yes. The written procedures (SOPs) covering corrective measure for abnormal water testingwas available for review during the audit. It is called "Remedial Action For Water That Exceed Acceptance Criteria."

2.08.03i



Auditor Comments: N/A. No unsuitable results were detected.

2.08.03j

Question: Are the crops irrigated by a micro irrigation or drip system?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. The crops were irrigated by drip system.

2.08.03k



Auditor Comments: No. No overhead irrigation was used to irrigate the crops.

2.08.03l

Question: Are the crops irrigated by flood irrigation or a furrow system?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: No

Auditor Comments: No. No furrow system is used for the crop.

2.08.03m

Question: Are the crops sub irrigated (also known as seepage irrigation)?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: No. No crops sub irrigated was used.

Page 16 of 26

2.08.04

Question: Is the water used in the growing operation sourced from ponds, reservoirs, watersheds or other surfacewater source? If No, go to 2.08.05


Auditor Comments: No. Reservoir water was not used as a water source.

2.08.04a

Question: Is surface water in adequate distance from untreated manure?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

2.08.04b

Question: Do animals (domestic, livestock, or wild) have access to the water source?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

2.08.04c

Question: Is it evident that the water source is free of contamination issues and are measures taken to minimizecontamination of the water source?


Auditor Comments:

2.08.04d

Question: Are records kept for the periodic visual inspections and disinfection treatments (if used) available forreview?


Auditor Comments:

2.08.04e

Question: Are microbiological tests, including generic E.coli conducted on the water? If No, go to 2.08.04gPossible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

2.08.04f


Auditor Comments:

2.08.04g



Auditor Comments:

2.08.04h



Auditor Comments:

2.08.04i



Auditor Comments:

2.08.04j


Auditor Comments:

Page 17 of 26

2.08.04k



Auditor Comments:

2.08.04l


Auditor Comments:

2.08.04m


Auditor Comments:

2.08.05

Question: Is the water used in the growing operation sourced from canals, rivers, ditches, or other open flowingwater systems? If No, go to 2.08.06


Auditor Comments: No. No water from canals is used.

2.08.05a


Auditor Comments:

2.08.05b

Question: Is the water source under the direction of a water authority or district?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

2.08.05c

Question: Do animals (domestic, livestock, or wild) have access to the water source?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

2.08.05d

Question: Is it evident that the water source is free of contamination issues and are measures taken to minimizecontamination of the water source?


Auditor Comments:

2.08.05e

Question: Are records kept for periodic visual inspection and disinfection (if occurring) of the water source andavailable for review?


Auditor Comments:

2.08.05f

Question: Are microbiological tests, including generic E.coli conducted on the water? If No, go to 2.08.05hPossible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

2.08.05g


Auditor Comments:

Page 18 of 26

2.08.05h



Auditor Comments:

2.08.05i



Auditor Comments:

2.08.05j



Auditor Comments:

2.08.05k


Auditor Comments:

2.08.05l



Auditor Comments:

2.08.05m

Question: Are the crops irrigated by flood irrigation or furrow system?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

2.08.05n


Auditor Comments:

2.08.06

Question: Is reclaimed water used in the growing operation? NOTE: This refers to wastewater that has gonethrough a treatment process. If No, go to 2.08.07.


Auditor Comments: No. No reclaimed water was used.

2.08.06a

Question: Is the reclamation process under the direction of a water reclamation management or authority?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

2.08.06b

Question: Are microbial control measures for reclaimed water utilized?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

2.08.06c

Question: Are microbiological tests, including generic E.coli conducted on the water? If No, go to 2.08.06ePossible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

Page 19 of 26

2.08.06d


Auditor Comments:

2.08.06e



Auditor Comments:

2.08.06f



Auditor Comments:

2.08.06g



Auditor Comments:

2.08.06h


Auditor Comments:

2.08.06i



Auditor Comments:

2.08.06j


Auditor Comments:

2.08.06k


Auditor Comments:

2.08.07

Question: Are tail water (run off water) systems used in the growing operation? If No, go to 2.08.08.Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: No

Auditor Comments: No. Tail water was not used.

2.08.07a


Auditor Comments:

2.08.07b

Question: Do animals (domestic, livestock, or wild) have access to the tail water systems?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

Page 20 of 26

2.08.07c

Question: Is it evident that the water source is free of contamination issues and are measures taken to minimizecontamination of the tail water system?


Auditor Comments:

2.08.07d

Question: Are records kept for periodic visual inspection and disinfection (if occurring) of the water source andavailable for review?


Auditor Comments:

2.08.07e

Question: Are microbiological tests, including generic E.coli conducted on the water? If No, go to 2.08.07gPossible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

2.08.07f


Auditor Comments:

2.08.07g



Auditor Comments:

2.08.07h



Auditor Comments:

2.08.07i



Auditor Comments:

2.08.07j


Auditor Comments:

2.08.07k



Auditor Comments:

2.08.07l

Question: Are the crops irrigated by flood irrigation or furrow system?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments:

2.08.07m


Auditor Comments:

Page 21 of 26

2.08.08

Question: Are check valves, anti-siphon devices, or other back flow prevention systems in use when and wherenecessary?


Auditor Comments: Yes. The check valve was in place.

2.08.09

Question: Is irrigation equipment not in use free from pest contamination and stored clean, off the ground?Possible Points: 10Points Scored: 10Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. The irrigation equipment not in used were free from pest contamination and stored offthe ground.

GAP Crop Protection

2.09.01

Question: Is there a documented procedure for the mixing/loading of crop protection materials?Possible Points: 5Points Scored: 5Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. The grower had documented policy and procedures for the mixing/loading of cropprotection materials. It is called "Green Valley Farms Supply Inc., Mixing and Loading Procedures."

2.09.01a

Question: If observed, is the mixing/loading of crop protection materials performed according to the procedure andlabel instructions?


Auditor Comments: N/A. This activity was not observed during the audit.

2.09.02

Question: Is there a documented procedure for the application of crop protection materials?Possible Points: 5Points Scored: 5Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. There is a documented procedure for the application of crop protection material. It iscalled "Green Valley Farms Supply Inc., Spray Department Procedures."

2.09.02a

Question: If observed, is the application of crop protection materials performed according to the procedure andlabel instructions?



2.09.03

Question: Is there a documented procedure for the rinsing and cleaning of crop protection equipment?Possible Points: 5Points Scored: 5Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. The grower had documented procedures for the rinsing and cleaning of crop protectionequipment. It is called "Green Valley Farms Supply Inc., Spray Application Cleaning & Rinsing Procedures."

2.09.03a

Question: If observed, is the rinsing and cleaning of crop protection equipment performed according to theprocedure and label instructions?



2.09.04

Question: Is there documentation that shows the individual(s) making decisions for crop protection applicationsare competent?


Auditor Comments: Yes. Scott M Nishihara is the PCA. It is valid until December 31, 2016.

2.09.05

Question: Is there documentation that shows workers who handle crop protection materials are trained or areunder the supervision of a trained individual?


Auditor Comments: Yes. Scott M Nishihara and Gabe Garcia are responsible for the crop protection. Trainingrecords were available for review during the audit.

Page 22 of 26

2.09.06

Question: Are there up to date records of all crop protection products applied during the growing cycle? A 'NO' TOTHIS QUESTION RESULTS IN AN AUTOMATIC FAILURE OF THE AUDIT.


Auditor Comments: Yes. Grower application records were available for review on the day of the audit (Notice ofCompilation/Product Use Report-)- that include the date, treated area, product used and amount applied). Perm-Up, Melathica 8 Aquanul, Montana 2F and Foam Fighter were applied during the growing Cycle.

2.09.07

Question: Are there plant protection products registered and/or authorized by a government agency for use in thetarget crops in the country of production? If No, go to 2.09.08.


Auditor Comments: Yes. There is a plant protection products registered by a government agency for use in thetarget crops in the country of production. according to the manager, the crop protection applications were madeaccording to the guidelines established by product label and (Notice of Compilation/Product Use Report). MontereyCountry Agricultural Commission-Restricted Materials Permit:2700610.

2.09.07a

Question: Does the growing operation have the information available for the plant protection products registeredand/or authorized for use for the target crops in the country of production? A 'NO' ANSWER TO THIS QUESTIONRESULTS IN AN AUTOMATIC FAILURE OF THE AUDIT.


Auditor Comments: Yes. The growing operation has the information available for the plant protection productsregistered for use for the target crops in the country of production. (Notice of Compilation/Product Use Report).Monterey Country Agricultural Commission-Restricted Materials Permit.

2.09.07b

Question: Are crop protection applications restricted by the guidelines established by the product label,manufacturer recommendation, or by prevailing national/ local standards and guidelines? A 'NO' ANSWER TO THISQUESTION RESULTS IN AN AUTOMATIC FAILURE OF THE AUDIT.


Auditor Comments: Yes. The crop protection applications restricted by the guidelines established by the productlabel. The crop protection applications were made according to the guidelines established by product label (Noticeof Compilation/Product Use Report). Monterey Country Agricultural Commission-Restricted Materials Permit2700610.

2.09.07c

Question: Where harvesting is restricted by pre-harvest intervals (as required on the crop protection chemicalproduct labels, manufacturer recommendations and/or by prevailing national/ local standards) is the groweradhering to these pre-harvest interval time periods? A 'NO' ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION RESULTS IN ANAUTOMATIC FAILURE OF THE AUDIT.


Auditor Comments: Yes. The harvesting is restricted by pre-harvest intervals. The records and label showed thatpre-harvest intervals had been respected. Records of the chemical applications were available for review during theaudit (Completion Notice/Use Report PUR). For example: Reason and Dika were applied on June 31, 2016 withPre-harvest Intervals of 2 day and Re-entry Intervals of 24 hours and the product is going to be harvest on August29, 2016.

2.09.08

Question: If applicable, for those plant protection products that are not registered for use on target crops in thecountry of production, if the country has no or a partial legislative framework to cover plant protection products, canthe grower show that they have registration information, label information, MRL tolerances, etc. for the country ofdestination? A 'NO' ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION RESULTS IN AN AUTOMATIC FAILURE OF THE AUDIT.


Auditor Comments: N/A. The Pesticides were registered for the target crop. All Crop protection products are usedin the USA only.

2.09.09

Question: Is there evidence available that the grower is taking all the necessary measures to comply with thecountry(ies) of destination expectations regarding crop protection products used (e.g. registration information, labelinformation, MRL tolerances or any other guidelines applicable)? A 'NO' ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION RESULTSIN AN AUTOMATIC FAILURE OF THE AUDIT.


Auditor Comments: Yes. The records showed that organization is taking all the necessary measures to complywith the expectation regarding crop protection products used. Records of applications were available for reviewduring the audit (Product Use Report, Product Use Recommendation and Field Recommendation and MaximumResidue Levels (MRLs) Country of Production and MRL in Country or Countries of Consumption).

2.09.10

Question: If crop protection containers are stored on the property (even temporarily), are they stored in a mannerto prevent contamination and disposed of responsibly?


Auditor Comments: N/A. Pesticides and empty containers were not stored in the ranch.

Page 23 of 26

2.09.11

Question: Have documented policies and/or procedures been developed for the monitoring of crop protectionapplication equipment (e.g. calibration procedures, inspections, replacement)?


Auditor Comments: Yes. There were documented policies and/or procedures for the calibration. It is called "WestCoast Farms/ Raven Calibration Procedures." The frequency of the calibration is monthly y at a minimum or asneeded.

2.09.11a

Question: Is it evident that the equipment used for crop protection applications is in good working order?Possible Points: 0Points Scored: 0Score: N/A

Auditor Comments: N/A. Equipment used for crop protection applications were not observed at the time of theaudit.

GAP Field Worker Hygiene (Applies to on-the-farm or greenhouse workers not the harvesting workers)

2.10.01

Question: Does the growing operation have a documented and implemented policy for dealing with workers whoappear to be physically ill, or become ill while working?


Auditor Comments: Yes. There is a documented and implemented the policy for dealing with employees whoappear to be physically ill, or become ill while working. It is called "Food Safety Policies P.4 Illness." At the time ofthe audit, no employees were observed ill.

2.10.02

Question: Does the growing operation have a documented and implemented policy regarding workers with opensores and wounds?


Auditor Comments: Yes. There is a documented and implemented policy regarding employees with open soresand wounds. It is called "Food Safety Policies P.5 Injury." At the time of the audit, no employees were observedwith open sores, wounds or ill.

2.10.03

Question: Does the growing operation have documented and implemented procedures describing the disposition ofproduct that has come into contact with blood or other bodily fluids? A 'NO' ANSWER TO THIS QUESTIONRESULTS IN AN AUTOMATIC FAILURE OF THE AUDIT.


Auditor Comments: Yes. There is documented and implemented procedures describing the disposition of productthat has come into contact with blood or other bodily fluids. It is called "Food Safety Policies/Bodily Fluids."

2.10.04

Question: Does the growing operation have documented and implemented policies prohibiting eating, drinking(including gum chewing) using tobacco in the growing area?


Auditor Comments: Yes. There are a documented and implemented policy prohibiting eating, drinking (includinggum chewing) using tobacco in the growing area. It is called "Worker Practices and Production Area Policies/P.9Food, Beverages, Tabacco." At the time of the audit, no employees were observed eating or drinking in the auditarea.

2.10.05

Question: Is there a food safety hygiene training program covering new and existing workers and are there recordsof these training events?


Auditor Comments: Yes. There was a food safety program covering new and existing employee training. Therecords were available from the last training. Gabe Garcia is responsible for the safety meeting training on April 3,2016. The title of the document is called "Training Sign-In Sheet." Records of the training were available for reviewduring the audit. Frequency Monthly or as needed.

2.10.06

Question: Are there operational toilet facilities provided? If NO, go to 2.10.07. A 'NO' ANSWER TO THISQUESTION RESULTS IN AN AUTOMATIC FAILURE OF THE AUDIT.


Auditor Comments: Yes. Operational toilet facilities were provided for the employees.

Page 24 of 26

2.10.06a

Question: Are toilet facilities placed within ¼ mile or 5 minutes walking distance of all workers?Possible Points: 10Points Scored: 10Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. Toilet unit was placed within 1/4 mile/5 minutes of employees.

2.10.06b

Question: Are toilet facilities in a suitable location to prevent contamination to product, packaging, equipment andgrowing areas?


Auditor Comments: Yes. Toilet trailer was located outside of the growing area to prevent contamination toproduct.

2.10.06c

Question: Is a minimum of one toilet facility provided for each group of 20 workers?Possible Points: 5Points Scored: 5Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. There were adequate numbers of toilet facilities available for the number of employeesworking a the growing operation at the time of the inspection.

2.10.06d

Question: Do toilet facilities have visuals or signs, written in the appropriate languages, reminding workers to washtheir hands before returning to work?


Auditor Comments: Yes. The toilet facility has visuals signs, written in the appropriate languages, remindingemployees to wash their hands before returning to work. The hand wash signs were posted in English andSpanish.

2.10.06e

Question: Are the toilets maintained in a clean and sanitary condition and are there records showing toiletcleaning, servicing and stocking is occurring regularly?


Auditor Comments: Yes. The toilet unit was clean during the audit. The servicing record was in place.

2.10.06f

Question: Are the catch basins of the toilets designed and maintained to prevent contamination (e.g. free fromleaks and cracks)?


Auditor Comments: Yes. Catch basins appeared to be intact and free from cracks or leaks during the audit.

2.10.06g

Question: Is there a documented and implemented procedure for emptying the catch basin in a hygienic mannerand also in a way that prevents product, packaging, equipment, water systems and growing area contamination?


Auditor Comments: Yes. There was documented and implemented procedures for emptying the catch basin in ahygienic manner. It is called "United State."

2.10.07

Question: Is there evidence of human fecal contamination in the growing area(s)? A 'YES' ANSWER TO THISQUESTION RESULTS IN AN AUTOMATIC FAILURE OF THE AUDIT.


Auditor Comments: No. There was no evidence of fecal contamination in the growing area during the audit.

2.10.08

Question: Are there operational hand washing facilities provided? If No, go to 2.10.09Possible Points: 15Points Scored: 15Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. A hand washing unit was attached to the exterior of the toilet.

2.10.08a

Question: Are the hand washing facilities placed within ¼ mile or 5 minutes walking distance of all workers?Possible Points: 10Points Scored: 10Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. The hand washing facilities were located with the toilets. The toilet unit was placedwithin 1/4 mile/5 minutes of employees.

Page 25 of 26

2.10.08b

Question: Are hand wash stations clearly visible (e.g. situated outside the toilet facility) and easily accessible toworkers?


Auditor Comments: Yes. The hand wash station was clearly visible. It is situated outside of the toilet unit.

2.10.08c

Question: Are hand wash stations properly stocked with soap, paper towels and trash can?Possible Points: 5Points Scored: 5Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. The hand wash station was properly stocked with soap, paper towels and trash can.The supervisor had spare supplies. This was verbally confirmed by manager.

2.10.08d

Question: Are the hand wash stations designed and being maintained to prevent contamination onto the growingarea(s) (i.e. spent water does not go straight to the ground)?


Auditor Comments: Yes. The hand wash units appeared well designed and maintained during the audit.

2.10.08e

Question: Does the growing operation have a documented and implemented policy and procedure in placerequiring workers to wash their hands (e.g. prior to beginning work, after breaks, after toilet use)?


Auditor Comments: Yes. There is a documented and implemented policy and procedure in place requiringemployees to wash their hands. It is called "Food Safety Policies P.2 Hand Washing."

2.10.09

Question: Is fresh potable drinking water provided for workers? If No, go to 2.10.10Possible Points: 10Points Scored: 10Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. Fresh portable drinking water readily accessible to employees at the time of theinspection.

2.10.09a

Question: If used, are water containers maintained in a clean condition?Possible Points: 5Points Scored: 5Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. The water container was clean and well maintained at the time of the inspection.

2.10.10

Question: Are first-aid kits available and is the inventory maintained properly?Possible Points: 5Points Scored: 5Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. The first aid kit was kept on-site and was maintained properly. The first-aid kit wasstocked with inventory (disposable gloves, bandages) and was accessible for employees. All date coded materialsare within expiry dates.

2.10.11

Question: Are there trash cans available on the field placed in suitable locations? Possible Points: 5Points Scored: 5Score: Yes

Auditor Comments: Yes. The garbage container was located next to the toilet units. It was closed to preventcontamination and attraction of pests.

2.10.12

Question: Are there any foreign material issues observed that are or could be potential risks to the product in thegrowing area(s)?


Auditor Comments: No. Foreign materials were not observed during the audit.

2.10.13

Question: Is there a documented and implemented policy that infant or toddler aged children are not allowed in thegrowing area? NOTE: This includes any packaging or equipment storage areas.


Auditor Comments: Yes. There is a documented and implemented policy that infant or toddler aged children arenot allowed in the growing area. It is called "Worker Practices and Production Areas Policies-P13 UnthorizedPersonnel, Children s and Infants." Infant or toddler were not observed at the time of the inspection.

Page 26 of 26

Date post:	19-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times